Marc Stevens’ Habeas Petition for Ademo Freeman of

The text below was posted by Marc Stevens on his website,, on July 24th, 2012 about Ademo’s current stint in Hillsborough County Jail:

Below is a short video about the habeas corpus petition I filed with the superior court in Manchester, New Hampshire. I’m doing it because Ademo is friend and liberty activist who has not done anything harmful. He was put in jail and not given a trial de novo because his court date notifications were sent to the wrong address.

I will be posting regular updates and videos covering this process. I hope to at least be able to help get Ademo out earlier than the 60 days. If it goes the way it went in Keene, I may only have one status conference to make it happen.

You wouldn’t think men & women calling themselves the “STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE” would be so adverse to discussing what they mean when they say they represent the “STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE”. But, when there is no state, it’s just a fiction, a dba, it makes sense.

That doesn’t even take into account confronting them on the facts they rely on proving the laws of the “STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE” apply to you. So in addition to the deliberate court error, the other big issue is jurisdiction i.e., the lack of evidence of presence within the plaintiff state and applicability of the laws.


Pete Eyre

Pete Eyre is co-founder of As an advocate of peaceful, consensual interactions, he seeks to inject a message of complete liberty and self-government into the conversation of police accountability.

Eyre went to undergrad and grad school for law enforcement, then spent time in DC as an intern at the Cato Institute, a Koch Fellow at the Drug Policy Alliance, Directer of Campus Outreach at the Institute for Humane Studies, Crasher-in-Chief at Bureaucrash, and as a contractor for the Future of Freedom Foundation.

In 2009 he left the belly of the beast and hit the road with Motorhome Diaries and later co-founded Liberty On Tour. He spent time in New Hampshire home, and was involved with Free Keene, the Free State Project and The Daily Decrypt.

  • Pingback: Ademo's Wrongful Caging - Can You Pledge to Help? | Cop Block()

  • Pingback: Marc Stevens’ Habeas Petition for Ademo Freeman of | OccuWorld()

  • Common Sense

    Wow, $100/hr phone consultation, $25 for downloadable templates..seems Marc has a nice business selling things. I also notice he tends to explain ‘you can’t win, but I’ll help you lower your fees’ angle…how interesting.

    Is Marc a Freeman of the Land? A guru? Slowing fooling the common man out of money when they have run in with the law, mislead that he will save them? Not really save them right, just ‘lower’ your fees. Sounds like a scam to me, just the legal-speak all the while, your paying him.

    I notice he doens’t claim to be a member of the bar in any state as well, in fact, from his own website, “He is not a lawyer and is not trained in the law..”

  • Pingback: Marc Stevens’ Habeas Petition for Ademo Freeman of |

  • Hay common sense, yes 100$ an hour does seem like a bit for consultation with a non-lawyer on legal matters, but it probably serves a purpose of weeding out the people who are iffy about trying the (Socratic)method. When you think about it 25$ for something that COULD(never a guarantee) get multiple 100+ fines dismissed, is not very much. As for the book, I’ve read it and would easily pay 25 for the humor in it alone, it is a good read.

    The cant win thing is because of his view that by the time they first contact you, you’ve already lost something(time/feeling of safety) that you may have trouble getting back. The main purpose of the material seems to be about getting proceedings/collections stopped or dismissed, but if during the time that you are annoying them with THEIR law, they want you gone and offer a deal they you can live with, then both parties can move on. Plus they will be left with a memory of how difficult going after you is.

    “Is Marc a Freeman of the Land?” . . . NO.

    “A guru?” . . .spiritual instructor-no, mentor-maby, guide-maby, wise teacher-no do your own research, expert in a certain technical area who helps others-I don’t think he would call himself an expert,but he claims to have spoken in court as an expert witness on traffic law

    “Slowing fooling the common man out of money when they have run in with the law,”. . . Maybe, I have not yet FULLY checked EVERYTHING that he claims

    “mislead that he will save them?” . . .NO “their are no silver bullets”-Marc Stevens

    “Not really save them right, just ‘lower’ your fees.” where does you get this from? when does he speak about lowering fees except for excepting a deal when the losses become personally for you. Like a 200$ fine that could take 6 hours in court with an offer to reduce the fine to 20$

    “Sounds like a scam to me, just the legal-speak all the while, your paying him.” Please go to your nearest (normal/law)library, find a legal dictionary and play an episode of Marc’s show through a media device of your choice, and whenever he uses a legal word/phrase you are not familiar with, pause and read the entire section for that word(not “law”, that word takes up multiple pages). some words I suggest are ,case/jurusdiction/cause/action/cause-of-action.(not intended to be read as though it were spoke with anything other than an honest tone.)

    “I notice he doens’t claim to be a member of the bar in any state as well,” this is correct

    “in fact, from his own website, “He is not a lawyer and is not trained in the law..”” I believe this is supposed to be, not FORMALLY trained in the law, that is to be interpreted as “has not gone to law school” but that shouldn’t be a problem. Most police officers haven’t gone to law school but they are competent to make basic determinations of law, Right?

    Common sense, please use some common sense and make determinations about his work, based on his work, and not based on others work(“Is Marc a Freeman of the Land?”) the majority of his work is based on asking questions to take away the appearance of legitimacy, and the absolute minority(like 0%)is based on how they spell your name.

  • Common Sense

    …ha ha ha, he’s a con man. Using bullshit arguments for this and that, all the while suckers pay him, thinking they are ‘freeman’ fighting tryanny.

    What’s that old saying, about a sucker being born every minute…

  • fazenda

    What arguments does he use that are bullshit?
    And why are they bullshit?

    I have a digital copy of the book, and didn’t pay anything for it, I haven’t payed him a single cent.

    “thinking they are ‘freeman’ fighting tyranny. ” where are you getting this from? when does he ever talk about a name being in all caps or any of the stuff claimed about the birth certificate.

    Even if a sucker is born every minute, with over 200 babies a minute. Not everyone born, is a sucker.

    What SPECIFICALLY in the method do you see that is SPECIFICALLY WRONG/INCORRECT and WHY is it wrong/incorrect.

  • fazenda

    common sense, did you decide to stop attempting to discuss your opinion and the reasons for it?

  • chase200mph

    Who told Marc badges don’t grant extra rights? He lives in Texas but doesn’t get out much? I am reading a whole lot of legalease coming from Marc’s posts…..but they never seem to say a damn thing? I must be stupid I guess….

  • fazenda

    When does Marc mention badges?
    He lives in Arizona.
    What posts of Marc’s are you having trouble with, I might be able to help.

  • So,

    we all can learn the law.

    David Miller’s trial was full of issues:

    He was introduced evidence by the prosecution immediately upon the commencement of trial, leaving him without the ability to prepare a proper defense, pursuant to the constitution and the rights of the accused, and the US Constitution’s guarantee of equal access to the courts.

    However, it may be a waiver to the ability to appeal.

    But jurisdictional issues are not waived.

    The Montana PRIVACY IN COMMUNICATIONS act is similar.

    The attorney stated in no such terms that the defendant was guilty. Another appealable problem for the State – you may only have 30 days to appeal this.

    Instead of hiring a lawyer, continue continue continue and study study study.

    Learn the law.

  • Ademo was pro se, just like many pro se-ers.

    Trial errors:

    Ademo focused on the wrong argument. Bad clothes. Bad facial expressions and body language. He asked mean questions. The questions on cross were harmful to his case. He didn’t attack the elements of the charges. His questions were too complex, they were trying to make a point. Cross exam is only for poking holes in the wall. Then the State laid a foundation for privacy by asking foundational questions, victim awareness, undercover office, etc., then popped the main question: “does the public have access to that information? is the public allowed to come sit at your desk? how would that impact?”

    This is where Ademo loses. The State focuses on being the best of the show. He uses tactics to steal the show. Introduced example of distraction, said as much.

    What do you know about the wiretapping law? (Ademo)
    Are you aware of the wiretapping law? (Prosecutor)
    (Prosecutor did follow up questions.)

    Laying foundational questions lead to popping the big question, and also point the witness to answer the big question in the way you want. The foundational questions that are being laid, explain, more fully the big question.

    A question by itself, a single question, cannot really tell the witness what you are saying. You have to ask many foundational questions that lead up to the big question, so that the witness really understands what you are asking, and can answer quickly and simply.

    Ademo looked back at the audience, he looked like a frightened rabbit, not good for trying to prove innocense.

    The concept of public scrutiny was his defense. He should have not assumed that all people think like him and his small community of people. He should have at least attacked the elements.

    Witness sequestration causes the video evidence to be played over and over, reinforcing it’s importance to the jury.

    Instead of taking notes during the direct, use something simple and discrete, and show interest and listen confidently to the witness.

    Attempts to argue legal-ness of a law to a jury are meaningless because they cannot change the law as public policy, don’t do this.

    Arguments about the procedure taken by the police are fruitless.

    The prosecutor is the lead actor, but yields procedure and decisions to the judge, because he knows that if the judge likes him, so will the jury.

    The prosecutor asks the witnesses questions that show that they are good people and have done things that relate to the jury.

    Ademo spoke quickly. The jury was further hampered by this. He didn’t deviate from this in the video. He cut them off on the phone, just being a jerk (in the eyes of the jury). He did this to the jury members.

    A rally is a party without alcohol and a band, instead a general idea and mass hypnosis. Instead, become self-aware, become self-empowered. Learn the law and control your mind, forget egoism. Just because you make a website, and because people YAY you, doesn’t mean you make any real impact.

    The State’s questioning tells a story.

    The State used the school and the kids, academic concerns and privacy concerns.

    The State used questions to rebut Ademo’s contention about public policy and jury nullification.

    At the beginning, the public attending is laughing at the prosecutor and the cops, but by the third witness, they all realize that the prosecutor is in charge.

    You must be in charge of the whole show, but disciplined and humble.

    Too technical, not simple questions, it was confusing to the jury.

    His questions didn’t do anything against the State’s story. Too many questions mislead the jury and confuse them.

    Yes his political point is accurate, but that is NOT the point. The point is that he is being tried for felony wiretapping. The witnesses are not on trial. The defendant is putting the witnesses on trial. He says “alleged” too much.

    Ademo gets distracted and ends early. His style of questioning is inflexible.

    The State is wearing a better suit and looks better. When at the bench, the prosecutor has the back of his head towards the jury, and doesn’t show emotion, doesn’t make gestures, looks like he is more in control. The prosecutor is not mean to him and even makes the defendant smile and nod and laugh a little bit towards him.

    LUNCH – closing arguments.

    He acts like this is fun and smiles a lot because he is getting his ass handed to him. He acts like a punk kid in court and unprofessional.

    The audience is disruptive and that hurts Ademo’s case.

    Ademo is typing notes, the state is rearranging papers. The state is prepared with multiple formats in a flexible system.

    Ademo asked for a few moments to collect his thoughts on paper.

    In his closing, he proved the state’s elements.

    He is asking for jury nullification, if the law should apply.

    In his closing, it is written and read off a long yellow sheet, and said…the end, fucking gay ass argument.

    The state’s position is that he break the law and is okay with it.

    The prosecutor does not even look at the judge during his speaking with the jury.

    Prosecutor’s strong closing argument. He argues the law. That anyone paid by the state has no expectation of privacy. He says that the legislature made the limit.

    State refers to the jury instructions and how the defendant’s argument of expectation of privacy is not in the instructions – WRONG ARGUMENT.

    The path we go down. The path you lead the jury on. No question that he’s guilty. The elements.

    Prosecutor is stone cold the entire time.

    As a juror, you want to like the defendant and help him to get free, but he has to try hard and not be a dick.

    The instructions are so long and complex that they are almost useless. If the judge is boring in reading the jury instructions, then it will be up to who presented a better case.

    Direct or circumstantial evidence, reason and common sense, use the rain outside and closed window analogy.

    The jury instructions are 1/3 of the time of trial and nearly 80% of the information dumped on the jury. Therefore, cut out everything that is not sniping.

    Purposely – mental state.

    Conscious object to engage.

    Specific intent.

    Knew or aware of what he was doing, purposely requires more than that.

    Pretrial behavior of the judge and prosecuting attorney is different than during trial. This is misleading to the defendant.

    Can ask for more on the record.

    The way that the defendant communicated with the judge was not clear and not loud and not confident.

    The prosecutor got the judge to read the elements 3 or 4 times by stating that the judge read it wrong.

    The way the defendant acted after the trial, made him look bad.

    In summation:

    The STATE kicked ADEMO’S ass! Learn from this! Grow from this!
    You can’t be very activist in prison!

    Thank you for filming this, it is good practice to know how to not make mistakes.